MOHAMMEDUNNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to quash the order of the Sub magistrate, Chowghat, committing the accused in P. E. case 3 of 1964 for trial to the Court of Session, Trichur. P. E. 3 of 1964 was taken on file on a private complaint by the second respondent in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 27-3-1964. In respect of the same incident the second respondent's son had sent a petition to the Dy. S. P. Irinjalakuda. On that, a case was registered and investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police and as a result of the said investigation the police laid a charge sheet against four accused persons who are accused 3 to 6 in P. E. 3 of 1964. That case is C. C. 593 of 1964. On the application of the petitioners that case has been transferred by the District Magistrate, Trichur to the court of the Sub divisional Magistrate of Kunnamkulam and is pending trial before the said Sub divisional Magistrate.

(2.) BESIDES Pw. 1 and his son, Pw. 6, four other witnesses pws. 2 to 5 were examined in support of the prosecution case. After the conclusion of the prosecution witnesses the case was posted to 11-9-1964 for the examination of the defence witnesses. The petitioners filed a list of 10 persons to be examined as defence witnesses and the Magistrate directed issue of process. Necessary batta was deposited, and all the witnesses were said to have been present in court pursuant to the summons issued by the court. But on that day, it is now conceded, the counsel for the complainant was absent and the Magistrate adjourned the case to 29-9-1964.

(3.) DEALING with the powers contained in S. 207a & contrasting it with the corresponding provisions of S. 208 Cr. P. C. , the Supreme court in a recent decision in State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra (1963) 1 s. C. W. R. 44 stated: "in other words in regard to proceedings tried under s. 208, an accused person is entitled to lead evidence in defence and the magistrate is bound to allow such evidence to be led, except, of course, where he comes to the conclusion that such evidence need not be led in which case he has to record his reasons for coming to that conclusion".